Planning for Water Reuse in Northeastern Illinois (and other places where most people think there is an abundant water supply) Illinois Waste Management and Research Center March 12, 2008 Paul Anderson, CAEE Department, IIT 1
Acknowledgments Partners Illinois Institute of Technology Illinois Waste Management and Research Center Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Sponsors US EPA Science to Achieve Results Program Illinois Waste Management and Research Center Who does all the work Sachin Pradhan Yi Meng Shihui Luo Feng Huang 2
Overview Parts of NE Illinois are running out of water Water reuse is part of the solution Industries have hydrologic footprints Issues that affect reuse planning An integrated reuse system 3
NE Illinois: Growing demand for water 2,000 Projected water use (mgd) 1,800 1,600 1,400 Baseline Scenario Conservation Scenario NIPC 1,200 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Dziegielewski et al. (2005) Year 4
We don t t use water very efficiently Toilet (28%) Kitchen (3%) Laundry & cleaning (14%) Shower & bath (22%) Outdoor (33%) Domestic water use (USEPA, 2006) 5
NE Illinois: Limited water sources Minimum flow requirements Inland Surface Water 3% Aquifers 11% Unknown resources Falling water table Limited by Supreme Court decree Lake Michigan 86% Northeastern Illinois regional non-cooling water source allocation (NIPC, 2001) 6
The Illinois Diversion Lake Michigan 54% 2 WPPs Users Reuse N.B. Chicago River 16% 30% Combined Sewer System 7 WWTPs Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal, Cal-Sag Channel Lockport Mississippi River 7
Water reuse priorities Industrial Process/cooling Commercial/Domestic Car wash Toilet flush Firefighting Irrigation Groundwater recharge Potable water Low Quality High High Priority Low 8
Industrial hydrologic footprints Measure of industry interaction with water Conventional direct water use Evaporative loss associated with electricity use Stormwater runoff from industry property Supply chain direct water use Supply chain evaporative loss with electricity 9
Estimating hydrologic footprints in Chicago Consider 50 largest volume water dischargers Supply chain data from eiolca.net Data normalized to economic activity (gal/$) 10
Water & electricity use for 31 Direct electricty use (MkWh) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Mid-water & electricity use industry sectors High water & electricity use Low water & electricity use 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Water evaporated with electricity use (10 9 gallons) Direct water use (10 9 gallons) 11
Supply chain water & electricity use 3000 3 Electricity (MkWh) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Supply chain dominated by less than 60 unique SIC codes 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 Water evaporated with electricity (10 9 gallons) 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 Direct water use (10 9 gallons) 12
Who makes up the supply chain? Blast furnaces and steel mills Industrial inorganic and organic chemicals Paper and paperboard mills Petroleum refining Pulp mills Nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilizers Primary aluminum Plastics materials and resins 13
Hydrologic footprints for four SIC codes 2066 Chocolate & Cocoa Products SIC code 2047 2011 Dog & Cat Food Meat Packing 2046 Wet Corn Milling 0 20 40 60 80 100 Industry direct Industry electricity Supply chain electricity Supply chain direct On-site stormwater 14
Hydrologic footprint summary Indirect use (stormwater, electricity) is small Direct use (industry or supply chain) dominates Supply chains are often important Supply chains dominated by a few industries 10% have relatively big footprints (gal/$) What issues affect water reuse? 15
Water reuse: Barriers & Incentives Risk Policy Economics Regulations Technology Water Source Wastewater Treatment Users 16
Water reuse regulations Federal There are no water reuse regulations Guidelines for Water Reuse (USEPA, 2004) States (2004 data) 25 states have regulations 16 states have guidelines 9 states without regulations or guidelines Illinois regulations address land application 17
Water reuse risks Ecosystem risks Chemical contaminants of concern Nutrients Human health risks Pathogenic organisms Bacteria, viruses, protozoa Chemical contaminants of concern Pharmaceuticals Pesticides, herbicides Disinfection by-products 18
there have not been any confirmed cases of infectious disease resulting from the use of properly treated reclaimed water in the U.S. USEPA (2004) Are there unconfirmed cases? What about non-infectious disease? How long does it take to see effects? What about incidental reuse? What about ecosystem risks? 19
Is wastewater reuse economical? Objective: Minimize cost Constraints: Demand Mass balance Capacity Water withdrawal Water quality 20
Pipeline costs dominate Pumping CC 1% Pumping O&M 5% Disinfection O&M 3% Revenue loss <1% Pipeline CC 91% 21
Costs have a spatial relationship Volume demand increases with distance III II I 22
Costs depend on flow & distance 10 Supply cost 5 0 0.1 0.5 0.9 Volume Qdemand 23
Costs depend on flow & distance 10 Supply cost 5 0 0.1 0.5 0.9 Q 24
Costs depend on flow & distance 10 Supply cost 5 0 0.1 0.5 0.9 Q 25
Costs depend on flow & distance 10 Increasing the distance increases the cost Supply cost 5 Increasing the flow decreases the cost 0 0.1 The minimum cost 0.5 0.9 Q 26
A case study for industry near the Kirie WRP 27
Kirie case study 28 Significant Industrial Users Metal finishing: 16 Electroplating: 4 Others: 8 Total water discharge: 1.09 MGD Assume 50% treated effluent use Supply effluent 12 months/year 6 months/year additional chlorination 28
Kirie case study parameters Interests rate: 6% 5%~10% Utility service life: 40 years 25~40 years Amortization period: 40 years 25~40 years Pipeline installation unit cost: 75 US$/feet 75 ~ 200 US$/feet 29
Kirie case study Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 30
Kirie case study Zone 1 31
Kirie case study Zones 1 & 2 32
Kirie case study Zones 1, 2 & 3 33
12 Cost depends on volume & distance (i = 6%, τ = 40 years, Pipeline US$75/feet) Supply cost (2006US$/1,000 gallons) 10 8 6 4 2 L = 5.6 miles L = 8.2 miles L = 13.4 miles Elk Grove Village water Chicago municipal water 0 0.1 0.6 Flow rate (MGD) 34
Chicago reuse study summary Pipeline installation costs dominate Spatial relationships affect supply cost Reuse can be cost effective Chicago is an unusual case study Municipal water is very cheap Reuse offers no economic incentive to MWRDGC Chicago s s successful water conservation efforts 35
What about the western suburbs? Recent drought Municipal water costs are higher Groundwater supplies uncertain Surface water up to 35% treated effluent 36
New issues in the suburbs Industrial clusters are limited Distribution over longer distances Consider non-industrial users Park district, golf course, forest preserve Limited seasonal demand Potential increased exposure 37
Integrated water reuse planning for the suburbs Inventory available land considering: IEPA land application regulations Distance Relationship to potential co-users Model fate and transport Soil, groundwater, surface water Process design and operation 38
Are there other reuse incentives? Greatest cost: Distribution system Is there another benefit? Once you install a secondary distribution system, is there another use? 39
Geothermal heat pumps the most energy efficient, environmentally clean, and cost-effective space conditioning systems available. (USEPA, 1993) Benefits (USDOE, 1998): Less energy consumption Lower operating costs Reduced carbon emissions 40
Average monthly temperatures (2002) 30 25 20 15 10 5 O'Hare Field 0 Stickney Treatment Plant Effluent -5 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 41 Temperature (C)
Effluent as a heat source/sink Growing interest in water-source heat pumps Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation 200 geothermal demonstration systems Space conditioning and hot water supply Payback < 10 years Benefits of working with effluent Higher temperature implies higher efficiency Avoid drilling to install ground loops 42
Domestic geothermal heat pump Ground loop represents about 60% of initial costs USDOE (1998) 43
Dual-purpose distribution system Integrated infrastructure Non-potable water supply Ground loop for heat pump system Issues Economics Regulations Technology Risk Policy 44
Summary thoughts Water reuse can help meet demand Hydrologic footprints measure efficiency Incentives & barriers for reuse Soft: Technology, policy, regulations Hard: Public perceptions, economics Water reuse can be economical Integrated planning for multiple uses Consider water & energy 45